[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10253-S10254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE EPA'S PENDING NOX EMISSIONS RULE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on July 16, 1997, President Clinton directed 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) transport standards under the Clean Air Act. 
Subsequently, on November 7, 1997, the EPA announced a proposed ozone 
transport rule to reduce the regional transport of ground-level ozone 
across a 22-state region of the eastern United States, and the agency 
is now poised to announce its final ruling on NOX emissions 
and ozone transport. The 22 states that have been targeted by this rule 
are some of the nation's most heavily populated, and include a large 
concentration of major industries, utilities, and automobiles.
  Based on past experience, it is not surprising that the Environmental 
Protection Agency has, once again, decided to pursue a heavy-handed and 
arbitrary approach toward its regulation of NOX emissions. 
While the EPA argues that its recommendations reflect the cooperative 
work of 37 states through the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 
process, OTAG actually recommended a range of options to be considered 
on a state-by-state basis. The EPA, in its proposed rule, has chosen 
the most extreme of those recommendations--an 85% reduction in 
NOX emissions within the 22-state region. Far from being a 
flexible, tailored reduction for individual states based on their own 
contributions to the problem of ozone and air quality, this is a 
draconian, one-size-fits-all, command-and-control approach and does not 
take into account regional differences. I am concerned that this plan, 
which is apparently based on insufficient scientific information, poses 
potentially substantial harm to the economies of the affected states 
without delivering on the substantial environmental benefits it claims.
  A key concern with the EPA's recommendation is that it is based on 
modeling results that are inconsistent with modeling conducted by OTAG. 
The EPA has made a finding that Midwest and Appalachian states 
significantly contribute to nonattainment in the downwind states. The 
OTAG modeling actually concluded that the air-borne transport of ozone 
is only a major concern within a radius of 150 miles of the emission 
source. Using the OTAG results, emissions of nitrogen oxide from the 
Midwest and Ohio Valley simply do not affect ozone levels in the 
Northeast at a significant level, and the suggestion that emissions 
from the Mississippi area affect the eastern seaboard is even more 
unjustified by the empirical evidence. The OTAG modeling indicates that 
the greatest contributions to the ozone problem in the Northeast are 
emissions from sources in the Northeast and, particularly, from the 
growing numbers of automobiles congesting the roads and filling the air 
with their fumes. As my colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island 
and Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in an 
April 16, 1997, letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, ``Contrary 
to a public belief too readily accepted without any evidentiary 
foundation, our problem does not come primarily from distant 
smokestacks in the Ohio River Valley.''
  Recommendations based on OTAG's modeling ranged from targeted 
reductions only in specified non-attainment locations to the EPA's 
extreme choice of an 85% reduction across the board in all states. If 
the EPA forces the so-called ``upwind'' states like West Virginia, 
Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia to reduce their emissions by 
the recommended 85%, the effect will be economically harmful, yet will 
do little in the long run to reduce the Northeast's ozone problem or 
improve its overall air quality. This recommendation is neither 
equitable nor cost-effective.
  The consequences of the EPA's decision for the Midwest and 
Appalachian states will be severe. For example, my own state of West 
Virginia is currently in compliance for ozone. West Virginians are 
proud of this record and are working hard to maintain a clean 
environment. Unfortunately, however, despite this commendable record of 
compliance, the EPA is proposing that West Virginia reduce its 
NOX emissions by a whopping 44%. This is a huge overnight 
shift in policy--from compliance to gross under-compliance in the 
twinkle of an eye--which would force significant, costly changes to 
industries and utilities in my state, but for what purpose? For what 
purpose?
  Mr. President, studies conducted by industry officials estimate that 
it will cost $500 billion for every 10% decrease in NOX 
emissions, costs that will be passed onto consumers. If the EPA's 
proposal is implemented, electricity rates will climb precipitously in 
States like West Virginia, but this sacrifice reportedly will do little 
to improve air quality in the Northeast. According to a recent study by 
the Alliance for Clean Air Policy (ACAP), the EPA's 85% reduction will 
require an initial investment of $6 billion and an annual compliance 
cost of $1.2 billion by utilities in the 22-State region. Other 
industry cost estimates are even larger. Businesses and consumers in 
the Midwestern, Appalachian, and Southeastern States will bear the bulk 
of these costs. Electric power utilities will be forced to install 
selective catalytic reduction equipment on a large number of existing 
plants, but there is little experience in the United States with the 
use of this type of technology. What we do know is that selective 
catalytic reduction, SCR, technology is extremely costly and will 
require difficult retrofitting for many powerplants over a period of 
several years in order to meet the EPA's recommended reductions. By all 
appearances, the emissions reductions mandated by the EPA in the 
Midwestern and Appalachian region are unjustified and they are unfair.
  We sometimes forget that, too often, bureaucratic rules have major 
impacts on a personal level. Electricity rates in West Virginia and the 
Midwest are considerably lower than those of the Northeast. If the EPA 
issues its rule forcing States to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 
85%, Midwest and Appalachian utility rates will rise significantly. 
Meanwhile, as much of the United States is enjoying the benefits of a 
strong economy, the Appalachian region is still struggling to pull 
itself, in some areas, out of poverty. In recent years, West Virginia 
has aggressively sought out and won new business opportunities.
  Toyota is making a very important announcement even today, within the 
next hour, of additional plans that it has for its plant in Putnam 
County, WV.
  West Virginians who previously had to leave the State for career 
opportunities are now able to come back home to well-paying jobs that 
can comfortably support their families. If this stiff new rule goes 
into effect, families in West Virginia will find it harder to pay their 
electric bills; retirees on small pensions will face choices that could 
threaten their health and well-being; and companies, facing narrower 
profit margins, may consider moving their operations elsewhere because 
they would no longer receive the benefits of low-cost electricity. 
Further, communities that have invested in new infrastructure and have 
strained to help grow new and existing businesses could see their 
economic base dwindle. I am weary of regulations that lead to 
unnecessary economic dislocation. I want to be sure that the citizens 
of Appalachia can afford to heat and light their homes, and that they 
can receive reliable, consistent service from their utilities. I also 
want to be sure that each State recognizes and takes responsibility for 
its own air quality standards. But, I do not believe that a few States 
should have to shoulder the economic burdens for the EPA's hypothetical 
air quality improvements.

[[Page S10254]]

  Certainly, there are better, more scientifically and economically 
sound alternatives to the severe rule proposed by the EPA. A number of 
alternative proposals have been submitted that are projected to reduce 
NOX emissions and at the same time meet the attainment of 
the new 8-hour ozone standard in many states earlier than currently 
scheduled. In fact, 13 Governors have submitted alternative strategies 
for addressing this important issue. These alternative proposals 
include one by a group of six Governors, led by West Virginia Governor 
Cecil Underwood, who have submitted a very comprehensive proposal. 
Other similar alternative proposals have been submitted individually by 
the Governors of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, and Wisconsin. These alternative plans share the same 
core elements and represent aggressive steps to achieve a significant 
reduction in NOX emissions.
  The alternative recommendation put forth by the aforementioned 
coalition of six Governors representing West Virginia, Michigan, Ohio, 
Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia is a very comprehensive proposal. The 
first phase recommends a 55 percent reduction of NOX 
emissions by April 2002, followed by a 65 percent reduction in 
NOX emissions by April 2004. This alternative would also 
require significant reductions from other large non-utility sources by 
April 2003. By contrast, the EPA proposed an overall 85 percent 
reduction from major utility sources, 70 percent from major industries, 
and 50 percent from small industries by May 2003--a target few 
companies anticipate meeting without substantial costs. The EPA's 
compliance schedule also may threaten the reliability of electrical 
supplies in these and adjacent States.
  In the second phase, the coalition plan calls for assessing the 
reductions that will be necessary to meet the new EPA-mandated 8-hour 
ozone standard by 2009--3 years ahead of the EPA's schedule of 2010-
2012. As proposed, the assessment will be completed by 2001, the 
control requirements established by 2003, and additional controls in 
place in a reasonable period by 2007.
  I support initiatives like those put forth by the 13 Governors. They 
demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and have numerous advantages. A 
phased approach would avoid disruption in the reliability of 
electricity services and would achieve substantial cost savings for 
businesses and consumers. In recognition of the limited impact of long-
distance ozone transport, NOX controls for achieving the 8-
hour emission standard should be tailored at the local, State, and 
regional levels. The phased approach builds upon the OTAG 
recommendations for addressing regional transport concerns and would 
encourage allowance trading as a compliance tool. Finally, a phased 
approach would be consistent with the Clean Air Act requirements and 
would allow States to take the lead in developing technically sound 
strategies for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard.
  Clearly, alternative proposals exist that are achievable and that 
would provide cleaner air for millions of Americans sooner than would 
be provided in the Clean Air Act, without the adverse economic 
consequences that appear inevitable as a result of the EPA's proposal. 
Moreover, these types of alternative approaches are consistent with the 
July 1997 Presidential Directive calling for a flexible, common-sense 
approach to address this important and complex issue.
  The Governors have worked to craft reasonable, science-based, 
balanced, and cost-effective proposals. I hope that the White House 
will recognize the spirit of cooperation and commitment that these 
Governors have made to air quality standards that address both the 
environmental and the economic interests of their States and 
surrounding States.
  I also hope that these alternative proposals are given serious 
consideration before any final action is taken to issue a new rule. Let 
us not get in too big a hurry here. If a compromise is not reached 
regarding this very important matter, I am concerned that it will be 
tied up in the courts and thus prevent the States from taking the 
actions to which they have committed themselves, while also delaying a 
real, beneficial reduction of nitrogen oxide. Mr. President, I urge the 
administration to work with the Governors to reach an environmentally 
and economically sound and common-sense solution that is in the 
interest of our Nation as a whole.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________